Final_CHAPTER 4 (1)

CHAPTER-IV
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
The preceding chapter dealt with methodology, plan and procedure adopted by the
researcher to complete the operational part of this research work. The present chapter is
concerned with making analysis and interpretation of the data collected during
operational stage. The process of data analysis and interpretation is carried out under
different heads. In the present study, data was analysed and interpreted with reference to
the objectives and hypotheses of the study. The results arrived after analyses of raw data
are presented in following sub-headings:
1. Normality p-p plot
2. Frequency Distribution and Frequency Curve
3. Descriptive Statistics
4. Correlation
5. Independent t-test
SECTION I
Normality p-p plots
This section deals with the normal probability plot for job satisfaction, general well -
being, family environment, physical activity and socio-economic status among teachers.
The normal probability plot is a graphical technique for assessing whether a data set is
approximately normally distributed. If the points in the probability plot fall along a
straight line, you can assume that the data follow that probability distribution.
59
Chapter- IV Data Analysis and Interpretation
Figure 4.1: Normal P-P plot of job satisfaction among Chandigarh teachers
Figure 4.2: Normal P-P plot of general well-being among Chandigarh teachers
Figure 4.1 and 4.2 show normal P-P-plot for job satisfaction and general well-being
among teachers. Most of data points lies near the straight line for both job satisfaction
and general well-being, hence distributions of job satisfaction, and general well-beingare
approximately normally distributed.
60
Figure 4.3: Normal P-P plot of family Figure 4.4: Normal P-P plot of physical
environment among Chandigarh teachers activity among Chandigarh teachers
Figure 4.3 and 4.4 show normal P-P-plot for family environment and physical activity
among Chandigarh teachers. Most of data points lies near the straight line for both family
environment and physical activity, hence distributions of family environment and
physical activity are approximately normally distributed.
Figure 4.5: Normal P-P plot for socio-economic status among Chandigarh teachers
Figure 4.5 shows normal P-P-plot for socio-economic status among teachers. Most of
data points lies near the straight line for socio-economic status, hence distributions of
socio-economic status is approximately normally distributed.
61
SECTION –II
Frequency Distribution and Frequency Curve

This section deals with frequency distribution as well as frequency curves for job
satisfaction, general well -being, family environment, physical activity and socio-
economic status among government and private teachers of Chandigarh.
Table 4.1: Frequency distribution of Chandigarh teachers with regard to job

satisfaction
Class Interval Frequency Percentage (%)

>200 33 16.5
191-200 67 33.5
181-190 32 16
171-180 27 13.5
161-170 22 11
150-160 10 5
<150 9 4.5
Total 200 100
Figure 4.6: Line chart exhibiting the frequency curve for job satisfaction of
Chandigarh teachers
50
40
33.5
Percentage(%)
30
20 16
13.5 16.5
11
10 5
4.5
0
<150
>200
150-160
161-170
171-180
181-190
191-200
Class Intervals
62
Figure 4.7: Histogram curve for Job satisfaction of Chandigarh teachers
Table 4.1 and figure 4.6 represent the frequency distribution of Chandigarh teachers on
the basis of job satisfaction. Looking at the table it has been inferred that most of teachers
(33.5%) reported job satisfaction score between 191 to 200, as opposed to 16.5% teachers
who have a score of more than 200 and 16% of teachers who have a score of 181 to 190.
However, 13.5% of teachers and 11% of teachers respectively scored “171-180”and“161-
170” respectively for job satisfaction. Only 5% of teachers reported job satisfaction
between150 and 160, and 4.5% of teachers reported it below 150. The histogram for
teachers' job satisfaction is shown in Figure 4.7, which shows that most of the teachers
reported job satisfaction score above the average i.e., 185.43.
63
Table 4.2: Frequency distribution Chandigarh teachers with regard to their general
well -being

>220 4 2
211-220 9 4.5
201-210 67 33.5
191-200 60 30
181-190 33 16.5
171-180 24 12
<170 3 1.5
Total 200 100
Figure 4.8: Line chart exhibiting the frequency curve of general well-being of
Chandigarh teachers
50
40
33.5
30
30
Percentage(%)
16.5
20
12
10 4.5
1.5 2
0
<170
171-180
181-190
191-200
201-210
211-220
>220
Class Inverval
64
Figure 4.9: Histogram curve for general well -being of Chandigarh teachers
Table 4.2 and Figure 4.8 exhibit the frequency distribution based on general well-
beingscores. It can be concluded that majority of teachers (33.5%) reported their general
well -being scores in range 201 to 210, 30% teachers have 191 to 200, 16.5% teachers
scored 181 to 190 and 12% of teachers have 171 to 180, 4.5% of teachers with general
well -being scores of 211 to 220 and 2% of teachers scored general well -being 161 to
170. Only 1.5% of teachers scored general well -being below 170. Figure 4.9 shows the
histogram of teachers’ general well -being, which reveals that approximately half of the
teachers reported general well-beingscore below the mean (195.78).
Table 4.3: Frequency distribution of Chandigarh teachers with regard to family

environment
>275 17 8.5
251-275 84 42
226-250 60 30
201-225 18 9
176-200 17 8.5
150-175 4 2
Total 200 100
65
Figure 4.10: Line chart exhibiting the frequency curve of family environment of
Chandigarh teachers
50
42.0
40
30.0
30
Percentage(%)
20
9.0
8.5 8.5
10
2.0
>275
150-175
176-200
201-225
226-250
251-275
Class Interval
Figure 4.11: Histogram curve for Family Environment of Chandigarh teachers
The frequency distribution of Chandigarh teachers on the basis of family environment is

depicted in Table 4.3 and Figure 4.10. According to the table, maximum of teachers
(42%) reported family environment scores between 251 and 275, compared to 30%
teachers who have scores between 226 to 250 and 9% of teachers who have scores
between 201-225. Although, 8.5% of teachers have 176-200 family environment score.
66
Only 2% of teachers reported family environment score between 150 and 175. Figure
4.11 represents the histogram for teachers ‘family environment, hence it can be
concluded that most of the teachers reported family environment score above the average
i.e., 244.62.
Table 4.4: Frequency distribution of Chandigarh teachers with regard to physical

activity
1601-2000 5 2.5
1201-1600 33 16.5
801-1200 69 34.5
401-800 83 41.5
<400 10 5.0
Total 200 100
Figure 4.12: Line chart exhibiting the frequency curve for physical activity of
Chandigarh teachers
41.5
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
34.5
Percentage(%)
16.5
5
2.5
0
<400
401-800
801-1200
1201-1600
1601-2000
Class Interval
67
Figure 4.13: Histogram curve for physical activity of Chandigarh teachers
Table 4.4 and figure 4.12 represent the frequency distribution of Chandigarh teachers on
the basis of physical activity. Looking at the table it has been inferred that most of
teachers (41.5%) reported physical activity score between 401 to 800, whereas 34.5%
teachers who have a score of 801 to 1200 and 16.5% of teachers who have a score of
1201 to 1600. Only 5% of teachers reported physical activity less than 400, and 2.5% of
teachers reported it between 1601 and 2000. The histogram for teachers' physical activity
is shown in Figure 4.13, which reveals that most of the teachers reported physical
activity score below the average i.e., 881.13.
Table 4.5: Frequency distribution of Chandigarh teachers with regard to socio-
economic status
351-375 5 2.5
326-350 31 15.5
301-325 71 35.5
275-300 75 37.5
<275 18 9
Total 200 100
68
Figure 4.14: Line chart exhibiting the frequency curve for socio-economic status of
Chandigarh teachers
40 37.5
35.5
35
30
25
Percentage(%)
20
15.5
15
9
10
5
2.5
0
<275
275-300
301-325
325-350
351-375
Class Intervals
Figure 4.15: Histogram for socio-economic status of Chandigarh teachers
Table 4.5 and Figure 4.14 exhibit the frequency distribution based on socio-economic
status scores. It can be concluded that majority of teachers (37.5%) reported their socio-
69
economic status scores in range 275 to 300, 35.5% teachers have 301 to 325, 15.5%
teachers scored 326 to 350 and 9% of teachers scored below 275. A few of (2.5%) of
teachers scored socio-economic status range from 351-375. Figure 4.15 shows the
histogram of teachers’ socio-economic status, hence it can be concluded that most of the
teachers reported socio-economic status below the average i.e., 303.56.
SECTION-III
Descriptive Statistics: In this section, descriptive statistics analysis describes the mean,
standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, minimum and maximum of job satisfaction,
general well -being, family environment, physical activity and socio-economic status
among government and private teachers.
Table 4.6: Descriptive statistics for job satisfaction among Chandigarh government
and private teacher
Mean Median SD Skewness Kurtosis Minimum Maximum
Government 179.39 183.0 17.31 -0.36 -0.89 145 209
Private 191.45 197.0 12.46 -0.45 0.79 137 205
Total 185.42 190.5 16.21 -0.85 -0.19 137 209
Table 4.6 shows the descriptive statistics for job satisfaction among Chandigarh
government and private teachers. It is evident from the table that mean job satisfaction
among teachers was 185.42 with standard deviation 16.21. While mean job satisfaction
among government and private teachers were 179.39 and 191.45 with standard deviation
17.31 and 12.46, respectively. The distributions of job satisfaction among government
and private teachers were negatively skewed with coefficient of skewness as -0.36 and -
0.45, respectively. Similarly, the distribution of teacher’s job satisfaction was negatively
skewed. However, the curve for teacher’s job satisfaction was platykurtic as coefficient
of kurtosis was -0.19. The curve for job satisfaction among private teachers was
70
leptokurtic, while for job satisfaction among government teachers was platykurtic with
coefficient of kurtosis as 0.79 and -0.89, respectively. It can be concluded that private
teachers reported more job satisfaction as compared to government teachers.
Table 4.7: Descriptive statistics for general well-being among Chandigarh

government and private teacher
Media Skewnes Kurtosi Minimu Maximu

Mean SD
n s s m m
Governmen
198.44 201.0 11.92 -0.64 0.33 169 228
t
Private 193.11 195.0 11.87 -0.26 0.03 165 226
Total 195.78 198.5 12.16 -0.41 -0.03 165 228
Table 4.7 displays the descriptive statistics for general well-being among the teachers
Chandigarh government and private teachers. The table shows that the mean general
well-being of teachers was195.78, with standard deviation of 12.16, whereas the mean
general well-being for teachers in the private sector was193.11, with standard deviation
of 11.87, and in the government sector it was198.44, with standard deviation of 11.92.
The distribution of general well-being among the government and the private sector was
negatively skewed with coefficient of skewness of -0.64 and -0.26, respectively.
Simultaneously, the distribution of the teacher's general well-being was also negatively
skewed with coefficient as -0.41. The curve for teacher's general well-being was
platykurtic as coefficient of kurtosiswas -0.03, but the curves for general well-being
among government and private teachers were leptokurtic with coefficient of kurtosis as
0.33 and 0.33, respectively. It can be inferred that government teachers reported more
general well-being as compared to private.
Table 4.8: Descriptive statistics for family environment among Chandigarh

71
Minimu
Mean Median SD Skewness Kurtosis Maximum
m
Government Teachers
Cohesion 47.56 48.5 8.75 -0.62 -0.40 26 61
Expressiveness 31.13 32.0 5.73 -0.72 0.09 16 41
Conflict 42.63 42.5 6.64 -0.26 -0.35 26 56
Acceptance & Caring 42.02 43.0 5.55 -0.74 -0.30 27 49
Independence 30.13 30.5 4.48 -0.43 -0.15 18 38
Active Recreational
28.93 30.0 4.72 -0.94 0.27 16 38
Orientation
Organization 7.42 8.0 1.44 -0.11 -0.30 4 10
Control 13.90 14.0 2.01 0.27 0.07 9 19
32.1
Total 243.86 252.0 -0.43 0.28 156 289
1
Private Teachers
Cohesion 47.67 49.0 6.86 -0.56 -0.08 30 61
Expressiveness 31.47 32.0 4.63 -0.55 -0.13 19 41
Conflict 43.17 43.0 5.60 -0.15 -0.41 28 54
Acceptance & Caring 42.20 43.0 5.15 -0.65 0.10 27 51
Independence 30.70 31.0 3.76 -0.45 0.37 20 39
Active Recreational
28.80 30.0 3.83 -0.98 0.99 18 36
Orientation
Organization 7.42 7.0 1.60 -0.08 -0.67 4 10
Control 13.97 14.0 2.07 0.10 -0.17 9 19
23.6
Total 245.37 249.5 -0.33 0.79 172 279
8
Government and Private Teachers
Cohesion 47.62 49.0 7.84 -0.62 -0.18 26 61
Expressiveness 31.30 32.0 5.20 -0.69 0.17 16 41
Conflict 42.90 43.0 6.13 -0.24 -0.29 26 56
Acceptance & Caring 42.11 43.0 5.34 -0.70 -0.14 27 51
Independence 30.42 31.0 4.14 -0.47 0.11 18 39
Active Recreational
28.87 30.0 4.29 -0.95 0.58 16 38
Orientation
Organization 7.42 7.5 1.51 -0.09 -0.51 4 10
72
Control 13.94 14.0 2.04 0.18 -0.09 9 19

28.1
Total 244.62 251.0 -0.24 0.70 156 289
5
As shown in table 4.8, the mean values for dimensions of family environment such as
cohesion, expressiveness, conflict, acceptance & caring, independence, active
recreational orientation, organization and control among government teachers were
47.56, 31.13, 42.63, 42.02, 30.13, 28.93, 7.42, and 13.9 with standard deviation as 8.75,
5.73, 6.64, 5.55, 4.48, 4.72, 1.44 and 2.01, respectively. While the mean value for family
environment among government teachers was 243.86 with standard deviation as 32.11.
The distributions of overall family environment, and its dimensions like cohesion,
expressiveness, conflict, acceptance & caring, independence, active recreational
orientation, and organization among government teachers were negatively skewed with
coefficient of skewness as –0.43, -0.62, -0.72, -0.26, -0.74, -0.43, -0.94, and -0.11,
respectively. But control has a positive skewed distribution with coefficient of skewness
as 0.27. The curves of cohesion (-0.40), conflict (-0.35), acceptance & caring (-0.30),
independence (-0.15),and organization (-0.30)among government teachers were
platykurtic, whereas expressiveness (0.09), active recreational orientation (0.27), control
(0.07)and family environment (0.28) were leptokurtic.
For private teachers, the mean values for cohesion, expressiveness, conflict, acceptance
& caring, independence, active recreational orientation, organization and control were
47.67, 31.47, 43.17, 42.2, 30.7, 28.8, 7.42, and 13.97 with standard deviation as 6.86,
4.63, 5.6, 5.15, 3.76, 3.83, 1.60, and 2.07, respectively. Although, the mean value for
family environment among private teachers was 245.376 with standard deviation as
23.68. The distributions of overall family environment, cohesion, expressiveness,
conflict, acceptance & caring, independence, active recreational orientation, and
organization among private teachers were negatively skewed with coefficient of
skewness as –0.33, -0.56, -0.55, -0.15, -0.65, -0.45, -0.98, and -0.08, respectively. But
control has a positive skewed distribution with coefficient of skewness as 0.10. The
curves of cohesion (-0.08), expressiveness (-0.13), conflict (-0.41), control (-0.17), and
organization (-0.67) among private teachers were platykurtic, whereas acceptance &
73
caring (0.10), independence (0.37), active recreational orientation (0.99), and family
environment (0.79) were leptokurtic.
The average values for cohesion, expressiveness, conflict, acceptance & caring,
independence, active recreational orientation, organization and control were 47.62, 31.3,
42.9, 42.11, 30.42, 28.87, 7.42, and 13.94 with standard deviation as 7.84, 5.2, 6.13, 5.34,
4.14, 4.29, 1.51, and 2.04, respectively. While the mean value for family environment
was 244.62 with standard deviation as 28.15. The distributions of overall family
environment, cohesion, expressiveness, conflict, acceptance & caring, independence,
active recreational orientation, and organization among teachers were negatively skewed
with coefficient of skewness as -0.24, -0.62, -0.69, -0.24, -0.70, -0.47, -0.95, and -0.09,
respectively. But control has a positive skewed distribution with coefficient of skewness
as 0.18. The curves of cohesion (-0.18), conflict (-0.29), acceptance & caring (-0.14),
control (-0.09), and organization (-0.51) were platykurtic, whereas expressiveness (0.17),
independence (0.11),active recreational orientation (0.58), and family environment (0.70)
were leptokurtic.
It is evident from the above table that private teachers’ family environment score is better
than the government teachers. However, government and private teachers reported
approximately same scores for the sub scales of family environment (cohesion,
expressiveness, conflict, acceptance & caring, independence, active recreational
orientation, organization and control).
Table 4.9: Descriptive statistics for physical activity among Chandigarh government
and private teacher
Government Teacher
Moderate 182.20 160 123.25 0.32 -0.32 40 540

Walk 253.75 255 145.64 0.35 -0.55 85 750
Total Activity 756.95 742.5 268.34 0.58 -0.37 270 1515
Private Teacher
Moderate 248.00 240 143.58 0.61 -0.45 40 560
Walk 313.50 270 155.94 0.57 -0.23 90 720
74
Total Activity 1005.30 940 356.21 0.43 -0.37 270 1955

Government and Private Teachers
Moderate 215.10 180 137.48 0.84 -0.02 40 560
Walk 283.63 270 153.45 0.82 0.17 85 750
Total Activity 881.13 830 338.29 0.66 0.09 270 1955
Table 4.9 supports that mean values of moderate activity, walk and physical activity
among teachers were 215.1, 283.63, and 881.13 with standard deviation 137.48, 153.45,
and 338.29, respectively. The distributions of moderate activity, walk and physical
activity among teachers were positively skewed with coefficient of skewness as 0.84,
0.82, and 0.66, respectively. However, the curve for teacher’s moderate activity was
platykurtic as coefficient of kurtosis was -0.02. The curves for walk and physical activity
among teachers were leptokurtic with coefficient of kurtosis as 0.17 and 0.09,
respectively.
The average values of moderate activity, walk and physical activity among government
teachers were 182.2, 253.75, and 756.95 with standard deviation 123.25, 145.64, and
268.34, respectively. The distributions of moderate activity, walk and physical activity
among government teachers were positively skewed with coefficient of skewness as 0.32,
0.35, and 0.58, respectively. The curves for government teacher’s moderate activity, walk
and physical activity were platykurtic as coefficient of kurtosis were -0.32, -0.55 and -
0.37, respectively.
The mean values of moderate activity, walk and physical activity among private teachers
were 248, 313.5, and 1005.3 with standard deviation 143.58, 155.94, and 356.21,
respectively. The distributions of moderate activity, walk and physical activity among
private teachers were positively skewed with coefficient of skewness as 0.61, 0.57, and
0.43, respectively. The curves for private teacher’s moderate activity, walk and physical
activity were platykurtic as coefficient of kurtosis were -0.45, -0.23 and -0.37,
respectively.
It can be concluded that private teachers’ physical activity score is better than the
government teachers.
Table 4.10: Descriptive statistics for socio-economic status among Chandigarh
75
Government 55.81 56 2.67 -0.30 -0.37 50 60
Private 55.75 56 3.47 -0.45 -0.97 49 60
Total 55.78 56 3.09 -0.41 -0.67 49 60
Table 4.10 shows the descriptive statistics for socio-economic status among government
and private teachers. Table 10 reveals that mean socio-economic status among teachers
was 55.78 with standard deviation 3.09. While mean socio-economic status among
government and private teachers were 55.81 and 55.75 with standard deviation 2.67 and
3.47, respectively. The distributions of socio-economic status among government and
private teachers were negatively skewed with coefficient of skewness as -0.30 and -0.45,
respectively. Similarly, the distribution of teacher’s socio-economic status was negatively
skewed. However, the curve for teacher’s socio-economic status was platykurtic as
coefficient of kurtosis was -0.41. The curve for socio-economic status among government
and private teachers were platykurtic with coefficient of kurtosis as -0.37 and -0.97,
respectively. It can be concluded that private teachers reported approximately same
socio-economic status as government teachers.
SECTION IV
Correlation
It was a two-way statistical technique which aimed to examine the relationship.
Correlation values measure the strength and direction of linear relationship between the
two variables. Correlation coefficients lie between +1 to -1. Where +1 indicates the
perfect positive correlation while -1 indicates the perfect negative correlation. Any
variable shows correlation with itself with the value of 1.
H01: There is no relationship between physical activity and job satisfaction among
Chandigarh teachers.
H02: There is no relationship between physical activity and family environment among
76
H03: There is no relationship between physical activity and socio- economic status among
Table 4.11: Correlation between physical activity, job satisfaction, family

environment and socio-economic status among Chandigarh teachers
Family
Job Satisfaction SES
Environment
Pearson
0.18* 0.14 0.06
Correlation
Physical
Activity p-value 0.01 0.05 0.43
N 200 200 200
*Correlation Significant at 0.05 level

In the present study, Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation was used to identify the
relationship between physical activity, job satisfaction, family environment and socio-
economic status. From the result of the correlation test given in Table 4.11, it can be
concluded that job satisfaction has a significant positive relationship with physical
activity at 5% level of significance with coefficient of correlation as (r=0.180). Hence,
increase (decrease) in job satisfaction of teachers would result in the increase (decrease)
of physical activity or vice versa. But physical activity of teachers has non-significant
positive relationship with family environment (r=0.140) and socio-economic status
(r=0.060).Thus, hypothesis H01 is rejected, and the hypothesis H02 and H03 are accepted at
5% level of significance.
Hence, It can be concluded that physical activity among teachers has a significant
positive relation with job satisfaction, but it has no significant relation with family
environment and socio-economic status.
77
H04: There is no relationship between general well-being and job satisfaction among
H05: There is no relationship between general well-being and family environment among
H06: There is no relationship between general well-being and socio-economic status
among Chandigarh teachers.
Table 4.12: Correlation between general well-being, job satisfaction, family

environment and socio-economic status among Chandigarh teachers
Job Family
SES
Satisfaction Environment
Pearson
-0.26** -0.10 -0.22**
Correlation
General well-
being Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00 0.16 0.00
N 200 200 200
**Correlation significant at 0.01 level

The correlation analysis for general well-being, job satisfaction, family environment and
socio-economic status among teachers depicted in Table 4.12. As shown in the table,
general well-being among teachers has significant negative relationship with job
satisfaction (r=-0.260) at 1% level of significance. Hence, increase (decrease) in job
satisfactions among teachers would result in the decrease (increase) of general well-being
or vice versa. Similarly, there is a significant negative relation between general well-
being and socio-economic status among teachers (r=-0.22) at 1% level of significance.
However, family environment among teachers has a non-significant relationship with
general well-being at 5% level of significance with coefficient of correlation as -0.10.
Thus, hypothesis H04 and H06 are rejected at 1% level of significance, and the hypothesis
H05 is accepted at 5% level of significance.
Hence, it can be concluded that general well-being among teachers has significant
negative relation with job satisfaction and socio-economic status, while it has non-
significant relation with family environment. This study's correlation review revealed
78
striking findings about the complex ties between different elements shaping teachers'
lives, especially the link between physical activity, job pleasure, and overall wellness.
So, physical activity and a teacher's job satisfaction are connected. How? Well, change in
job satisfaction can affect how active a teacher is. And, if a teacher changes how active
they are, it could change how satisfied they are with their job. This shows how our
feelings and physical health at work are linked. Happy teachers may be more active,
thanks to feeling motivated. Not so happy? Then, they might be less active due to stress
or lost motivation. It's like a two-way street! To dig deeper, the detected strong negative
tie between feeling good overall and liking one's job shows us another important part of a
teacher's day-to-day. What this tells us is that changes in how much a teacher likes their
job could heavily shape their total feeling of wellness. Equally, changes in their well-
being could change how content they are with their job in return. If a teacher says they
aren't happy with their job, they might find their total wellness goes downhill. That could
be thanks to more stress or not liking their job affecting their home life. On the flip side,
someone having a rough time overall might struggle with liking their job, as personal
problems can affect their work. The link between overall happiness and liking one's job
highlights how teacher wellness includes both work and personal life. Teachers that enjoy
their jobs usually have a better sense of total happiness. On the flip side, if they're
unhappy in their profession, it could mean trouble for their personal happiness. This data
from our study gives important insights for schools and lawmakers. Knowing the deep
link between happiness at work, exercise, and overall good health can help craft focused
programs? These programs should aim to make the workplace better for teachers.
Techniques boosting work happiness might also push healthier ways of living. These
could motivate more exercise for teachers. On top of this, developing plans that highlight
improving total health, could perhaps create a happier and content group of teachers. This
study shows the deep link between teachers' happiness at work, their physical fitness, and
their overall comfort. These facts help us understand the complex world of teaching
better. They highlight the full experience of teachers. This knowledge underlines the
importance of multi-dimensional support for their total health and job fulfilment.
79
80
SECTION V
Independent T-test
In this section, independent t-test has been applied to compare means of job satisfaction,
general well-being, family environment, physical activity and socio-economic status
among government and private teachers.
H07: There is no statistically significant difference of job satisfaction score between
government and private school teachers.
Table 4.13: Significance difference in job satisfaction among Chandigarh

government and private teachers
Government Private
(n=100) (n=100) t-value df p-value
Mean SD Mean SD
Job Satisfaction 179.39 17.31 191.45 12.46 -5.65 198 0.00**
**Significant at 0.01 level
Figure 4.16: Mean difference of job satisfaction between Chandigarh government

and private teachers
179.39 191.45
190
170
150
130
110
90
70 Series1
50 17.31
30 12.46
10
Government Government Private Mean Private SD
Mean SD
Series1 179.39 17.31 191.45 12.46
Table 4.13 revealed the significance difference of job satisfaction among Chandigarh
government and private teachers. As shown in the table, government and private teachers
81
reported significant difference on job satisfaction as the t-value (198) = -5.65 and p-value
=0.000 at 1% level of significance. Thus, hypothesis H07 is rejected at 1% level of
significance; hence government teachers (179.39) reported significantly lesser job
satisfaction as compared to private teachers (191.45) with standard deviation 17.31 and
12.46, respectively. The mean comparison for job satisfaction among government and
private teachers is shown in Figure 4.16.
H08: There is no statistically significant difference of general well-being between
Table 4.14: Significance difference in general well-being among Chandigarh

Government Private
Mean SD Mean SD
General well-
198.44 11.92 193.11 11.87 3.17 198 0.00**
being
198.44 193.11
190
170
150
130
110
Axis Title 90
70 Series1
50
30 11.92 11.87
10
Government Government SD Private Mean Private SD
Mean
Series1 198.44 11.92 193.11 11.87
Axis Title
82
Figure 4.17: Mean difference in general well -being among Chandigarh government
The significance difference of general well-being among Chandigarh government and

private teachers is exhibited in Table 4.14. Table 4.14 supports that government and
private teachers reported significant difference on general well -being as the t-value (198)
= 3.17 and p-value =0.000 at 1% level of significance. Thus, hypothesis H08 is rejected at
1% level of significance; hence government teachers (198.44) reported significantly more
general well -being as compared to private teachers (193.11) with standard deviation
11.92 and 11.87, respectively. The mean comparison for general well-being among
government and private teachers is shown in Figure 4.17.
H09: There is no statistically significant difference of family environment between
Table 4.15: Significance difference in family environment among Chandigarh

Government Private
Mean SD Mean SD
Cohesion 47.56 8.75 47.67 6.86 -0.10 198 0.92
Expressiveness 31.13 5.73 31.47 4.63 -0.46 198 0.64
Conflict 42.63 6.64 43.17 5.60 -0.62 198 0.53

Acceptance &
42.02 5.55 42.20 5.15 -0.24 198 0.81
Caring
Independence 30.13 4.48 30.70 3.76 -0.97 198 0.33
Active Recreational
28.93 4.72 28.80 3.83 0.21 198 0.83
Orientation
Organization 7.42 1.44 7.42 1.60 - - -
Control 13.90 2.01 13.97 2.07 -0.24 198 0.81
Overall 243.86 32.11 245.37 23.68 -0.38 198 0.71
83
Figure 4.18: Mean difference between Chandigarh government and private teacher
on sub scales of family environment
47.67
47.56
43.17
42.63
42.02
42.2
50
45
31.47
31.13
30.13
40
28.93
30.7
28.8
35
30
25
13.97
13.9
20
7.42
7.42
15
10
5
Government
Mean Score
0
Private
Control
Conflict
Cohesion
Organization
Independence
Expressiveness
Acceptance & Caring
Active Recreational Orientation
Figure 4.19: Mean difference of family environment between Chandigarh

243.86 245.37
225
175
125 Series1
75
32.11
23.68
25
Government Mean Government SD Private Mean Private SD

Series1 243.86 32.11 245.37 23.68
84
Table 4.15 showed the significance difference of family environment and its dimension
among government and private teachers. The table conveys that government and private
teachers reported insignificant difference on family environment as the t-value (198) = -
0.38 and p-value =0.71 at 5% level of significance. Thus, hypothesis H09is accepted at
5% level of significance, hence government (243.86) teachers reported insignificantly
lesser family environment as compared to private teachers (245.37) with standard
deviation 32.11 and 23.68, respectively. However, government and private teachers
reported approximately same score for each dimension of family environment such as
cohesion (t-value= -0.10, p-value= 0.92), expressiveness (t-value= -0.46, p-value= 0.64),
conflict (t-value= -0.62, p-value= 0.53), acceptance & caring (t-value= -0.24, p-value=
0.81), independence (t-value= -0.974 ,p-value= 0.33), active recreational orientation (t-
value= 0.21 ,p-value= 0.83), and control (t-value= -0.24, p-value= 0.81), because
government and private teachers reported insignificant difference on theses dimensions
with insignificant p-values at 5% level of significance. The mean comparison for family
environment among government and private teachers is shown in Figure 4.19, and figure
4.18 represents the mean comparison for sub scales of family environment among
government and private teachers.
H10: There is no statistically significant difference of physical activity between
Table 4.16: Significance of physical activity between Chandigarh government and

private teachers
Government Private
Mean SD Mean SD
Vigorous activity 321.35 166.55 437.85 247.73 -3.90 198 0.00**
Moderate activity 182.20 123.25 248.00 143.58 -3.48 198 0.00**
Walk activity 253.75 145.64 313.50 155.94 -2.80 198 0.01**
Overall Activity 756.95 268.34 1005.30 356.21 -5.57 198 0.00**
Sitting time 833.60 238.22 827.40 220.30 0.19 198 0.85
85
Figure 4.20: Mean difference of different physical activity between Chandigarh

437.85
450
400
321.35 313.5
350
300 248 253.75
Mean Score
250
182.2
200 Government
150 Private
100
50
0
Vigorous activity Moderate activity Walk activity
Figure 4.21: Mean difference of physical activity between Chandigarh government

1100
900
700
500
300
100

Series1 756.95 268.34 1005.3 356.21
86
Figure 4.22: Mean difference of sitting time between Chandigarh government and
private teachers
833.6 827.4
850
750
650
550
450 Series1
350
238.22 220.3
250
150
50
Government Mean Government Sd Private Mean Private Sd
Series1 833.6 238.22 827.4 220.3
Table 4.16 depicted the significance difference of physical activity and its dimension
among Chandigarh government and private teachers. It is evident from table 4.16 that
government and private teachers reported significant difference on physical activity as
the t-value (198) = -5.57 and p-value =0.00 at 1% level of significance. Thus, hypothesis
H10 is rejected at 1% level of significance; hence government (756.95) teachers reported
significantly lesser physical activity as compared to private teachers (1005.3) with
standard deviation 268.34 and 356.21, respectively. Similarly, government teachers
reported significantly lesser vigorous activity (t-value= -3.90, p-value= 0.000), moderate
activity (t-value= -3.48, p-value= 0.000) and walking activity (t-value= -2.8, p-value=
0.01), as government and private teachers reported significant difference on theses
dimensions with significant p-values at 1% level of significance. The mean score of
vigorous activity, moderate activity and walking activity among government teachers
were 321.35, 182.20 and 253.75 with standard deviation 166.55, 123.25, and 145.64,
respectively, whereas the mean scores among private teachers were 437.85, 248 and
313.5 with standard deviation 247.73, 143.58, and 155.94, respectively. Although,
government and private teachers reported insignificant difference on sitting time as the t-
value (198) = 0.19 and p-value =0.85 at 5% level of significance. Thus, government
(833.6) teachers reported little bit more sitting time as compared to private teachers
(827.4) with standard deviation 238.22 and 220.3, respectively.
87
The mean comparison for physical activity among government and private teachers is
shown in Figure 4.21, and figure 4.20 represents the mean comparison for sub scales of
physical activity among government and private teachers. Figure 22 shows mean
comparison for sitting time among government and private teachers.
H11: There is no statistically significant difference of socio-economic status between
Table 4.17: Significance difference in socio-economic status between Chandigarh

Government Private
Mean SD Mean SD
Socio-Economic Status 55.81 2.67 55.75 3.47 0.137 198 0.89
Figure 4.23: Mean difference of socio-economic status between Chandigarh

55.81 55.75
55
45
35
Series1
25
15
2.67 3.47
5

Series1 55.81 2.67 55.75 3.47
Table 4.17 depicted the significance difference of socio-economic status among

government and private teachers. As shown in the table, government and private teachers
88
reported insignificant difference on socio-economic status as the t-value (198) = 0.137

and p-value =0.890 at 5% level of significance. Thus, hypothesis H11 is accepted at 5%
level of significance, hence government (55.81) and private teachers (55.75) reported
approximately same socio-economic status with standard deviation 2.67 and 3.47,
respectively. The mean comparison for socio-economic status between government and
private teachers is shown in Figure 4.23.
H12: There is no statistically significant difference of job satisfaction among government

teachers for different job experience.
H13: There is no statistically significant difference of general well-being among
government teachers for different job experience.
H14: There is no statistically significant difference of family environment among
H15: There is no statistically significant difference of physical activity among government
H16: There is no statistically significant difference of socio-economic status among
Table 4.18: Significance difference in job satisfaction, general well-being, family

environment, physical activity, and socio- economic status among Chandigarh
government teachers with regard to job experience
<5yrs ≥5 yrs
t-value df p-value
Job experience Mean SD Mean SD
Job Satisfaction 193.4 6.7 165.4 12.7 13.72 98 0.000**
General well-being 192.2 10.8 204.7 9.5 -6.18 98 0.000**

Family
244.3 28.1 243.4 36.0 0.15 98 0.882
Environment
Physical Activity 835.1 275.9 678.8 238.5 3.03 98 0.003**
Socio-Economic
56.0 2.5 55.6 2.8 0.79 98 0.434
status
89
Table 4.18 shows the results of comparative analysis for job satisfaction, general well -
being, family environment, physical activity and socio-economic status among
government school teachers for different job experiences; and Figure 4.24, 4.25, 4.26,
4.27 and 4.28 presents the mean values for job satisfaction, general well -being, family
environment, physical activity and socio-economic status among government school
teachers for different job experiences.
Figure 4.24: Mean difference of job satisfaction among Chandigarh government

teachers regarding job experience
193.4
190 165.4
170
150
130
110
90
70 Job Satisfaction
50
30 6.7 12.7
10
< 5yrs Mean < 5yrs SD ≥5 yrs Mean ≥5 yrs SD
Job Satisfaction 193.4 6.7 165.4 12.7
Table 4.18 supports that government teachers with experience less than 5 years and 5
years & more indicated a significant difference on job satisfaction as the t-value (98) =
13.72 and p-value =0.000 at 1% level of significance. Thus, hypothesis H12 is rejected at
1% level of significance, hence government teachers having experience 5 years& more
(165.4) reported significantly lesser job satisfaction as compared to government teachers
having experience less than 5 years (193.4) with standard deviation 12.7 and 6.7,
respectively.
90
Figure 4.25: Mean difference of general well –being among Chandigarh government
225 204.7
192.2
175
125
General well-being
75
10.8 9.5
25

General well-be- 192.2 10.8 204.7 9.5
ing
Similarly, hypothesis H13 is rejected at 1% level of significance as a significant difference

on general well -being among government teachers having experience less than 5 years
and 5 years & more, was observed with t-value (98) =-6.18 and p-value = 0.000. Thus,
government teachers having experience 5 & more (204.7) reported significantly more
general well -being as compared to government teachers having experience less than 5
years (192.2) with standard deviation 9.5 and 10.8, respectively.
Figure 4.26: Mean difference of family environment among Chandigarh

government teachers regarding job experience
244.3 243.4
225
175
125
Family Environment
75
36
28.1
25

Family Envi- 244.3 28.1 243.4 36
ronment
91
The government teachers with experience less than 5 years and 5 years & more reported
no significant difference on family environment as the t-value (98) = 0.15 and p-value
=0.882 at 5% level of significance. Thus, hypothesis H14 is accepted at 5% level of
significance, hence government teachers having experience 5 & more and less than 5
years reported approximately same family environment.
Figure 4.27: Mean difference of physical activity among Chandigarh government

835.1
850
750 678.8
650
550
450
Physical Activity
350 275.9
238.5
250
150
50
Physical Activ- 835.1 275.9 678.8 238.5
ity
Hypothesis H16 is rejected at 1% level of significance as a significant difference on

physical activity among government teachers with experience less than 5 years and 5
years & more was observed with t-value (98) =3.03 and p-value = 0.003. Thus,
government teachers having experience 5 & more (678.8) reported significantly lesser
physical activity as compared to government teachers having experience less than 5 years
(835.1) with standard deviation 238.5 and 275.9, respectively.
Figure 4.28: Mean difference of socio-economic status among Chandigarh

government teachers regarding job experience
92
56 55.6
55
45
35
25
Socio-Economic status
15
2.5 2.8
5
< 5yrs < 5yrs SD ≥5 yrs ≥5 yrs SD

Mean Mean
Socio- 56 2.5 55.6 2.8
Eco-
nomic
status
While government teachers with experience less than 5 years and 5 years & more
reported no significant difference on socio-economic status as the t-value (98) 0.79 and p-
value = 0.434, at 5% level of significance. Thus, hypothesis H15 is accepted at 5% level of
significance, hence government teachers having experience 5 & more and less than 5
years reported approximately same socio-economic.
H17: There is no statistically significant difference of job satisfaction among private
H18: There is no statistically significant difference of general well-being among private
H19: There is no statistically significant difference of family environment among private
H20: There is no statistically significant difference of physical activity among private
H21: There is no statistically significant difference of socio-economic status among
private teachers for different job experience.
Table 4.19: Significance difference in job satisfaction, general well-being, family

environment, physical activity, and socio-economic status among private teachers
regarding job experience
<5years ≥5 years
t-value df p-value
Job experience Mean SD Mean SD
Job Satisfaction 186.8 13.9 196.1 8.4 -4.04 98 0.00**
93
General well
186.3 12.0 199.9 6.8 -6.95 98 0.00**
being
Family
247.1 20.3 243.6 26.7 0.74 98 0.46
Environment
Physical Activity 1124.4 310.8 886.2 361.7 3.53 98 0.00**
Socio-Economic
57.2 3.0 54.3 3.3 4.58 98 0.00**
status
An appraisal of table 4.19 exhibits the results of comparative analysis for job
satisfaction, general well -being, family environment, physical activity and socio-
economic status among private school teachers for different job experiences; and Figure
29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 presents the mean values for job satisfaction, general well -being,
family environment, physical activity and socio-economic status among private school
teachers for different job experiences.
Figure 4.29: Mean difference of job satisfaction among Chandigarh private teachers
regarding job experience
94
196.1
186.8
190
170
150
130
110
90 Job Satisfaction
70
50
30 13.9
8.4
10
Job Satisfaction 186.8 13.9 196.1 8.4
The examination of table 4.19 revealed that private teachers with experience less than 5
years and 5 years & more indicated a significant difference on job satisfaction as the t-
value (98) = -4.04 and p-value =0.000 at 1% level of significance. Thus, hypothesis H17 is
rejected at 1% level of significance, hence private teachers having experience 5 & more
(196.1) reported significantly more job satisfaction as compared to private teachers
having experience less than 5 years (186.8) with standard deviation 8.4 and 13.9,
respectively.
Figure 4.30: Mean difference of general well –being among Chandigarh private
95
199.9
186.3
190
170
150
130
110
90
General well-being
70
50
30 12 6.8
10
General well-be- 186.3 12 199.9 6.8
ing
Similarly, hypothesis H18 is rejected at 1% level of significance as a significant difference

on general well -being among private teachers with experience less than 5 years and 5
years & more was observed with t-value (98) =-6.95 and p-value = 0.000. Thus, private
teachers having experience 5 & more (199.9) reported significantly more general well -
being as compared to private teachers having experience less than 5 years (186.3) with
standard deviation 6.8 and 12, respectively.
Figure 4.31: Mean difference of family environment among Chandigarh private

247.1 243.6
225
175
125
Family Environment
75
20.3 26.7
25

Family Envi- 247.1 20.3 243.6 26.7
ronment
While hypothesis H19 is accepted at 5% level of significance as no significant difference

on family environment among private teachers with experience less than 5 years and 5
years & more was observed with t-value (98) =0.74 and p-value = 0.46. Thus, private
teachers having experience 5 & more (243.6) reported insignificantly lesser family
96
environment as compared to private teachers having experience less than 5 years (247.1)
with standard deviation 26.7 and 20.3, respectively.
Figure 4.32: Mean difference of physical activity among Chandigarh private

1124.4
1100
886.2
900
700
500 361.7 Physical Activity

310.8
300
100

Physical Activity 1124.4 310.8 886.2 361.7
Private teachers with experience less than 5 years and 5 years & more reported significant
difference on physical activity as the t-value (98) = 3.53 and p-value =0.000 at 1% level
of significance. Thus, hypothesis H20 is rejected at 1% level of significance, hence private
teachers having experience 5 & more reported significantly more physical activity as
compared to private teachers having experience less than 5 years.
Figure 4.33: Mean difference of socio-economic status among Chandigarh private

97
57.2
54.3
55
45
35
25
Socio-Economic status
15
3 3.3
5

Socio-Economic 57.2 3 54.3 3.3
status
Private teachers with experience less than 5 years and 5 years & more reported significant
difference on socio-economic status as the t-value (98) =4.58 and p-value =0.000, at 1%
level of significance. Thus, hypothesis H21 is rejected at 1% level of significance, hence
private teachers having experience 5 & more reported significantly more socio-economic
status as compared to private teachers having experience less than 5 years.
DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS
98
Revealing Distinctions in Job Satisfaction, Happiness, and Lifestyle: A

Comparative Study of Government and Private Teachers
Looking at both public and private school teachers can reveal intriguing facts about how
they differ and compare in various aspects of their jobs and personal lives. It underscores
the distinctive experiences found in both school types.
Strangely, teachers in the public sector have shown lower levels of job satisfaction but
strangely, have more overall happiness than their private counterparts. This unexpected
pattern suggests that factors influencing general contentment could be broader than just
job fulfilment. It encourages a more detailed investigation into elements boosting public
teachers' satisfaction with life. These factors could include employment stability,
additional benefits, or personal gratification from contributing to a public institution's
goals.
Looking at family life, a clear similarity popped up between teachers from state-run and
private schools. Both groups shared similar home environments. Suggesting, their work
settings might not have a huge impact on their life at home. The study shows that the
family life of teachers remains unchanged, be it from public or private sectors, despite
differing in job happiness or job quality.
A significant variance exists in the movement patterns among public and private school
instructors. It appears that public educators are less mobile than their private counterparts.
What could be the reason? Possibly, diverse working environments or schedules. Public
school instructors tend to stick to rigid patterns and role duties that lessen their mobility.
On the other hand, private educators? They enjoy a bit more freedom. This could result in
them being more active.
Interestingly, the Socio-economic Status revealed by both government and private

teachers displayed no remarkable change. This finding suggests that despite the existence
of disparities in job satisfaction, physical activities, and overall joy between the sectors,
these variations might not significantly impact teachers' socio-economic conditions.
Shared socio-economic standing was found among government and private teachers. This
indicates that the nature of their profession may not inherently influence this part of their
lives.
99
Research comparing teachers in public and private schools discovered small differences
and unexpected similarities in various fields. Job satisfaction, personal well-being, and
fitness routines held clear variations, but family relationships and economic welfare
remained almost identical within both groups. This study highlights the complex
interplay of workplaces, personal matters, and individual joy, indicating we ought to
delve further into the different elements that shape teacher experiences in diverse
educational contexts.
Comparing Family Environment between Government and Private Teachers

Digging further into the possible disparities between public and private educators calls
for a detailed comparison. While the broad spread patterns might appear alike, subtle
variations might exist that highlight the unique experiences of teachers in these areas. For
instance, one might guess that public teachers, because of their job type, could report a bit
lower family environment rating than those working in the private sector.
Look at Figure 4.11's bar graph. It shows that a lot of teachers rate their family
environment above the average—a solid 244.62. You want to know if this is for real? Use
proven math tricks, like the t-test or analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). These tips can
tell you if the family environment scores truly differ between government and private
teachers. This key knowledge can guide the making of rules to help the happiness of
teachers in all areas.
Comparing General Well-being between Government and Private Teachers

Looking at the normal probability chart (Figure 4.2) and the frequency list (Table 4.2) for
teacher's overall happiness in Chandigarh, it’s clear that the info roughly follows a usual
layout. Diving into the details, the frequency list shows that a sizable chunk (33.5%) of
teachers, no matter where they work, shared overall happiness marks between 201 and
210.
Comparing government and private teachers helps us notice possible differences. The
patterns could seem alike, but there could be small shifts. Private teachers, for example,
might score better in surveys, showing improved well-being. Figure 4.9's graph shows
about half the teachers reported well-being scores below average (195.78). This makes us
think about things that impact teacher well-being in Chandigarh.
100
Checking and measuring these findings could be done with statistical methods like
hypothesis testing or regression analysis. This provides a stronger grasp of any
differences in overall welfare between public and private educators. These observations
aid in creating specific solutions to enhance the general well-being of teachers in both
areas.
Comparison of Job Satisfaction between Government and Private Teachers

The straightforward graph about job satisfaction for teachers in Chandigarh is shown in
Figure 4.1. It helps us see that the satisfaction levels fall into a normal distribution. The
data presented in Table 4.1 gives us more insights. It shows that many teachers, a solid
33.5%, scored between 191 to 200 on job satisfaction. They come from all sorts of jobs,
not just one kind. Figure 4.6, a line chart, highlights this score range as the maximum.
Digging deeper though, we need to study the differences between government and private
teachers.
Both groups seem to score similarly, yet distributions can vary. For example, more
government teachers might score above 200, hinting at possible satisfaction level
differences. Also, the chart in Image 4.7 suggests that teachers tend to report satisfaction
scores greater than the average (185.43). To confirm if the noted differences are
statistically relevant, it would be helpful to use tests like t-tests or ANOVA. This can
deepen our grasp of how satisfaction differs among government and private teachers in
Chandigarh.
Comparative Analysis of Descriptive Statistics: Government vs. Private

Teachers
Analyzing simple data about different aspects of government and private teachers in
Chandigarh gives us detailed understanding of their work and personal characteristics.
Job Satisfaction:
Public school teachers have a lower average job satisfaction score (179.39) when
compared to private school teachers (191.45). This implies that most private school
teachers generally feel more content and happier with their work. The measures of job
satisfaction among private educators tend to cluster more tightly. This could mean their
satisfaction levels tend to be more uniform.
101
General Well-being:
Shockingly, public school teachers showed a higher average overall happiness score
(198.44) than private school teachers (193.11). The kurtosis values hint that the
distribution of happiness scores for both groups is narrower and spiked. This shows the
scores tend to group around certain numbers.
Family Environment:
Although private teachers stated their family situations were somewhat improved, the
contrasts are delicate. The resemblance in family relationships between state and private
educators, revealed by the somewhat equal average values and spread traits, highlight the
impact of things besides work on home life.
Physical Activity:
The private teachers showed increased averages for moderate exercise, walking, and
overall physical movement, suggesting a more active lifestyle tends to be evident. The
skewed distribution illustrates that a large fraction of both public and private teachers
participates in physical activity ranging from moderate to high levels.
Socio-economic Status:
No meaningful change was seen in the financial status of public and private education
instructors, as both parties experienced similar average scores. The slanted statistics hint
at a focus on elevated financial standing, possibly affected by the value society places on
teaching careers.
Impact of Experience Among Teachers:

The experience of teachers, notably in government and private areas, shows interesting
ideas about how long they've worked affects different parts of their work and life.
In the world of government teachers, there's an interesting pattern related to Job

Satisfaction and General Well-being. Teachers who've taught for more than 5 years feel
less satisfied and generally less happy than those with fewer years. This implies that, as
teachers spend more time in governmental institutions, they may face issues that can
dampen their satisfaction and happiness levels. Things like a heavier workload, more
102
official responsibilities, or teaching becoming more monotonous, might lead to this

decrease in satisfaction and general well-being. Yet, these are typical for seasoned
government teachers.
In addition, we see less physical activity in seasoned government teachers, adding a new
part to this story. Those teachers, having more than 5 years of experience, do noticeably
less physical activity than their less experienced peers. This pattern might be tied to the
demanding job as years of experience pile up. As responsibilities and time required grow,
chances for physical activity might lessen. This could result in less exercise or fun
activities among the more experienced government teachers.
In reverse, with private tutors, we saw a contrasting pattern in Job Happiness, Overall
Health, and Exercise connected to experience. Tutors with more than 5 years under their
belt shared much higher contentment and overall health compared to newer ones. This
info hints that more years in private schools could have a positive effect on job
contentment and good health. As tutors spend more years in private school settings, they
could adjust well, feel more content because they are familiar with the job, or gain from
better support systems. This all leads to greater satisfaction and health reported.
Furthermore, private teachers with more experience tended to be more physically active
than their less experienced peers. This breaks the pattern seen with government teachers,
hinting that private institutions may create an environment that boosts or permits more
physical activity. This might be attributed to likely flexible timings, enhanced access to
gyms, or a workplace culture that honors and advances physical fitness amongst seasoned
private teachers.
In general, the research points to the varied effects of teaching experience across different
school types. Government teachers with more experience noted less satisfaction and well-
being, plus lesser physical activity. On the contrary, private teachers with experience
showed more satisfaction, improved well-being, and more physical activity. Knowing
these differences helps us see how tenure impacts differently in unique school types,
encouraging more study into what causes these different experiences and how they
impact teacher health and job performance.
103
Implications and Insights:

The noticeable differences in job happiness, overall health, and exercise habits between
public and private school teachers highlights how workplaces deeply affect teachers'
lives. These results give us important information and understanding that need more
research and special actions to boost the health and job fulfilness of educators.
1. Workplace Effects: It's clear to see. There's a real difference in the job happiness and
overall feeling of wellness in teachers at public agencies versus private institutions. This
shows how different the support systems in these places can be. We need to do more
digging into the specific things that make these differences. What helps raise job
happiness and wellness in private places? Or, on the flip side, what gets in the way of
these good things in public offices? It's important to know. This useful info can help us
make plans to make the workplace better. This could mean changing rules, improving
professional learning programs, or crafting support that meets the needs of teachers in
both public and private jobs.
2. Experience & Well-being: Helping teachers stay happy and active at work needs
attention. Many government teachers who've been around for a while aren't as satisfied or
healthy. It could be certain problems they face at work. Maybe support programs could
help. Like programs that offer guidance, health activities, or chances to learn new
professional skills. Using these might stop the drop in happiness and health. On the other
hand, let's not forget the happy, active long-time private teachers. We have to learn what
makes them pleased at work. Maybe we could also use what works at private schools for
governmental teachers. Or come up with plans that suit the unique needs of experienced
teachers across both sectors.
3. More Research and Help: The study shows how different things affect teachers’ lives
outside school. We need more work to fully get what's going on at work, how long
they've been teaching, and how happy, healthy, and satisfied they are. This is important.
The work can help make special plans to help teachers. If we put in place ways that make
mental and physical health, balance between work and life, and upbeat work venues more
important, we could make teachers' life quality a lot better overall.
104
This research reveals many aspects of teachers' lives. It highlights the vital role work
satisfaction, personal happiness, and health play together. It's significant to note the
differences seen between government and private teachers. Also, taking into account the
subtle effects of experience might help to create custom-made aids. These can enhance
teachers' overall well-being. Ultimately, helping teachers thrive will boost the education
quality. This will benefit the overall health of the teaching workforce.
105

Final_CHAPTER 4 (1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Final_CHAPTER 4 (1)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final_CHAPTER 4 (1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER-IV

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Frequency Distribution and Frequency Curve

Table 4.1: Frequency distribution of Chandigarh teachers with regard to job

Class Interval Frequency Percentage (%)

Figure 4.7: Histogram curve for Job satisfaction of Chandigarh teachers

Class Interval Frequency Percentage (%)

Table 4.3: Frequency distribution of Chandigarh teachers with regard to family

Class Interval Frequency Percentage (%)

Figure 4.11: Histogram curve for Family Environment of Chandigarh teachers

The frequency distribution of Chandigarh teachers on the basis of family environment is

Table 4.4: Frequency distribution of Chandigarh teachers with regard to physical

Class Interval Frequency Percentage (%)

Figure 4.13: Histogram curve for physical activity of Chandigarh teachers

Class Interval Frequency Percentage (%)

Figure 4.15: Histogram for socio-economic status of Chandigarh teachers

Mean Median SD Skewness Kurtosis Minimum Maximum

Government 179.39 183.0 17.31 -0.36 -0.89 145 209

Private 191.45 197.0 12.46 -0.45 0.79 137 205

Total 185.42 190.5 16.21 -0.85 -0.19 137 209

Table 4.7: Descriptive statistics for general well-being among Chandigarh

Media Skewnes Kurtosi Minimu Maximu

Private 193.11 195.0 11.87 -0.26 0.03 165 226

Total 195.78 198.5 12.16 -0.41 -0.03 165 228

Table 4.8: Descriptive statistics for family environment among Chandigarh

Control 13.94 14.0 2.04 0.18 -0.09 9 19

Mean Median SD Skewness Kurtosis Minimum Maximum

Moderate 182.20 160 123.25 0.32 -0.32 40 540

Total Activity 1005.30 940 356.21 0.43 -0.37 270 1955

Mean Median SD Skewness Kurtosis Minimum Maximum

Government 55.81 56 2.67 -0.30 -0.37 50 60

Private 55.75 56 3.47 -0.45 -0.97 49 60

Total 55.78 56 3.09 -0.41 -0.67 49 60

Table 4.11: Correlation between physical activity, job satisfaction, family

N 200 200 200

*Correlation Significant at 0.05 level

Table 4.12: Correlation between general well-being, job satisfaction, family

N 200 200 200

**Correlation significant at 0.01 level

Table 4.13: Significance difference in job satisfaction among Chandigarh

Figure 4.16: Mean difference of job satisfaction between Chandigarh government

Table 4.14: Significance difference in general well-being among Chandigarh

The significance difference of general well-being among Chandigarh government and

Table 4.15: Significance difference in family environment among Chandigarh

Cohesion 47.56 8.75 47.67 6.86 -0.10 198 0.92

Expressiveness 31.13 5.73 31.47 4.63 -0.46 198 0.64

Conflict 42.63 6.64 43.17 5.60 -0.62 198 0.53

Control 13.90 2.01 13.97 2.07 -0.24 198 0.81

Overall 243.86 32.11 245.37 23.68 -0.38 198 0.71

Acceptance & Caring

Active Recreational Orientation

Figure 4.19: Mean difference of family environment between Chandigarh

Government Mean Government SD Private Mean Private SD

Table 4.16: Significance of physical activity between Chandigarh government and

Figure 4.20: Mean difference of different physical activity between Chandigarh

Figure 4.21: Mean difference of physical activity between Chandigarh government

Government Mean Government SD Private Mean Private SD

Table 4.17: Significance difference in socio-economic status between Chandigarh

Socio-Economic Status 55.81 2.67 55.75 3.47 0.137 198 0.89